Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

[Doubting Thomas]

D28guy:
Those were examples...from that day and age...of theological and doctrinal views that people held to. And its clear that Gods view is that its no big deal at all...UNLESS we become mean spirited, condemning and sectarian regarding those who hold a different view. And we do sometimes get that way. THAT is a problem...NOT brothers and sisters having different convictions.

Yet it clearly is a big deal whether God is only a monad or exists in Three Persons. This goes to the very essence of who God is, yet advocates of "sola Scriptura" have come to mutually contradictory conclusions--some are Trinitarian, some are unitarian or modalists. I'd say the essence of God is fundamental to the faith.

It clearly is a big deal whether the God we worship is One who truly wants all to be saved, or whether he only desires and intends for the "elect" to be saved, an "elect" which is exclusively of His own choosing irrespective of how men may or may not respond to Him. It's hard to imagine that these two are the same "god".
Yet that's at the heart of Calvinist-Arminian debate which is presumably based on "sola Scriptura". I'd say the true character of God is a substantial issue.

It's also a big deal whether one can forfeit his salvation, or whether is unconditionally and eternally secure. Or whether all one has to do is just "believe", or whether obedience to Christ is necessary for salvation. Or whether the Holy Spirit does regnerate us in the waters of baptism and the Eucharist is the real communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, or whether these are just empty "symbols" or "ordinances" that have nothing to do with actual union with Christ.
These issues have bearing on the actual meaning of salvation and how it is "appropriated", and yet there are those "sola Scriptura" advocates who come to opposite conclusions on these substantial issues.

Sorry my friend, the Holy Spirit does not lead to chaos and contradictory views on the essence and character of God or on the meaning of the gospel and salvation and how it is received. We are to worship the One True God in Spirit and Truth, not in half-truths, partial truths, or in mutually conflicting conceptions of Him. I'm utterly and truly stunned and astonished that you can think it's okay for people just to be "convinced in their own minds" when the Truth itself (rather, Himself) is at stake.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
But that particular "II Esdras" was not in the LXX nor has it ever been part of the RCC's Canon or the Orthodox Canon (since it wasn't in the LXX). What I was asking for was specific examples of Deuterocanonical books from the LXX that were written before the time of Christ? (Hint: there aren't any.)

The Date of the Apocrypha:
The date II Esdras is the end of the first century
Esther was written about 165 B.C.
The Wisdom of Solocom was written near the end of the first century B.C.
Ecclesiaticus has been assigned to about 180 B.C.
Bel and the Dragon to the time of the Ptolemies.
Baruch was written after the destruction of Jerusalem--70 A.D.
The date of I Maccabees is placed after 135 B.C.,

The Attitude of the early Church Fathers:
It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew Canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the Old Testament. Augustine repeatedly stated the distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the Apocrypha, and in discussing a passage in II Maccabees declared that the book did not belong in the Hebrew Canon to which Christ bore witness.
Rufinus positively asserts that "The books of the Hebrew Canon are the inspired Scriptures." While Origen thought there were passages in the Apocrypha that were cited by the New Testament, he emphatically declared, "But this will give no authority to apocryphal writings, for the bounds which our fathers have fixed are not to be removed; and possibly the apostles and evangelists, full of the Holy Ghost, might know what should be taken out of those writings and what not. But we, who have not such a measure of the Spirit, cannot, without great danger presume to act in that manner."
That these books are spurious as to canonicity, and have no right to a place in the Word of God, is abundantly established. In rejecting these books the Protestant Bible takes the proper Scriptural position in maintaining that the Hebrew Canon contains the only Scriptures of the Old Testament recognized by our Lord and the New Testament writers.

(notes in the Analytical Dixon Bible, Dixon Publishing Co.)

Obviously none of them were written before the LXX, which was completed in 250 B.C. They are all complete forgeries.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

First Esdras-- was written probably in the 2nd Century B.C. by an unknown Greek-speaking Jew, whose purpose was to emphasize the contributions of Josiah, Zerubbabel and Ezra to the reforms of Israelite worship. It basically reproduces 2 Chronicles 35-36, all of Ezra and Nehemiah 7:38-8:12.

Tobit--was written probably in the 2nd Century B.C. by an unknown author.

Judith--was probably written in the 2nd Century B.C.

The Wisdom of Solomon--This book is probably the last book of the Old Testament and was written around 100 B.C. by an Alexandrian Jew, although he probably used earlier materials even those possibly written by King Solomon.

Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.
--This book is the work of Jesus, the son of Sirach, probably a Jewish Scribe who committed his teachings to writing about 180 B.C. Soon after 132 B.C., his grandson (see the Prologue) translated the book into Greek.

Baruch--scholars generally believe this was written during the time of the Maccabees or shortly thereafter


First Maccabees--The author of this book was probably a Palestinian Jew living in Jerusalem, who wrote not long after the death of the High Priest John Hyrcanus I (134-104 B.C.).

Second Maccabees--This book is an abridgment of a five-volume history, now lost, by one Jason of Cyrene, and is a theological interpretation of Jewish history from the time of the High Priest Onias III and the Syrian King Seleucus IV to the defeat of Nicanor's army (180-161 B.C.), paralleling 1 Mac. 1:10-7:50. The author is the first known to us to celebrate the deeds of the martyrs and clearly teaches that the world was created out of nothing. He believes that the saints in Heaven intercede for men on earth (15:11-16), and that the living might pray and offer sacrifices for the dead (12:43-45). The book can be divided into three parts: 1) (Ch. 1-2) Two letters from the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt; 2) (Ch. 3-10:9) Events relating to the Temple, priesthood and the Syrian persecution of the Jews from 176-164 B.C.; and 3) (Ch. 10:10-15:39) The successful military campaign of Judas Maccabeus and the defeat of Nicanor.

Third Maccabees--.This book, written during the 1st Century B.C., deals with the struggles of Egyptian Jews who suffered under the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopater (221-203 B.C.) and the persecution of Palestinian Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).

None were written after the time of Christ. They indeed became part of the LXX and were referred to as Scripture by the earliest Church fathers. Ethiopian Jews to this day include them in their canon (reflecting usage by the Jews of the Dispersion in NT times)

 

[DHK]

DT,
Not one of those books comes even remotely close to the LXX, written in 250 B.C., and more to the point, are even further removed from the Hebrew Canon of Scripture which was completed by 400 B.C. Why would any reasonable thinking person consider these spurious fairy-tale like books to be part of the inspired Word of God?
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

And yet all these books appear in the LXX. You make the mistake of concluding that just because the deuterocanonicals weren't written before the protocanonical OT was originally translated in Greek that they couldn't have been included in the LXX shortly thereafter. However, history says that they were.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
And yet all these books appear in the LXX. You make the mistake of concluding that just because the deuterocanonicals weren't written before the protocanonical OT was originally translated in Greek that they couldn't have been included in the LXX shortly thereafter. However, history says that they were.

They were never quoted by Christ. They were never quoted by the Apostles. They were never accepted by the Jews of any age. The difference in time between the writing of the Septuagint and the completion of the Apocrypha is more than 250 years. To consider these fairy-tale type books as Scripture is a joke.
Because someone included them in later editions of the Septuagint does make them authentic. They are no more authentic than the Book of Mormon.
DHK

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

I said...

"Those were examples...from that day and age...of theological and doctrinal views that people held to. And its clear that Gods view is that its no big deal at all...UNLESS we become mean spirited, condemning and sectarian regarding those who hold a different view. And we do sometimes get that way. THAT is a problem...NOT brothers and sisters having different convictions."

And you say...

"Yet it clearly is a big deal whether God is only a monad or exists in Three Persons. This goes to the very essence of who God is, yet advocates of "sola Scriptura" have come to mutually contradictory conclusions--some are Trinitarian, some are unitarian or modalists. I'd say the essence of God is fundamental to the faith."

Why are you bringing up false christian views about the nature of God into this? Why are you changing the subject? We have been speaking of "in house" discussions regarding brothers and sisters in the faith. Lets stick with that.

"It clearly is a big deal whether the God we worship is One who truly wants all to be saved, or whether he only desires and intends for the "elect" to be saved, an "elect" which is exclusively of His own choosing irrespective of how men may or may not respond to Him. It's hard to imagine that these two are the same "god".
Yet that's at the heart of Calvinist-Arminian debate which is presumably based on "sola Scriptura". I'd say the true character of God is a substantial issue."

The folks on the predestination side and the folks on the free will side do indeed agree with one another regarding many many aspects of the nature and character of God.

That God is love. That God is holy. That God wants to save people. That God wants to teach people truth. That God hates sin. That God hates lies. That Christ died for our sins. etc etc etc.

And folks from either group will accuratly present the truth of the gospel...justification through faith alone in Christ alone...to a lost person.

They disagree regarding *some* aspects of how this all works itself out. And you are correct...it is substantial. Thats why these brothers and sisters contend with one another regarding truth. Its a very very very healthy thing. Without the freedom of brothers and sisters contending...error can run rampant, unchecked, unhindered, multiplying exponentially.

Just take a look at the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons, and Catholics. What hidious messes those groups are.

" It's also a big deal whether one can forfeit his salvation, or whether is unconditionally and eternally secure. Or whether all one has to do is just "believe", or whether obedience to Christ is necessary for salvation. Or whether the Holy Spirit does regnerate us in the waters of baptism and the Eucharist is the real communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, or whether these are just empty "symbols" or "ordinances" that have nothing to do with actual union with Christ.
These issues have bearing on the actual meaning of salvation and how it is "appropriated", and yet there are those "sola Scriptura" advocates who come to opposite conclusions on these substantial issues.

And thats why its such an incredibly healthy thing for brothers and sisters to come together and discuss these things...holding each other accountable...being Gods "checks and balances" system. What a healthy thing it is.

And what a catastrophe...a monsterous and devilish catastrophe...when any group can decieve Gods dearly loved people into thinking that THEY...the "Hierarchy" of that group...are Gods truth interpreters, and that everyone must submit to every interpretation of theirs, because they are...supposedly...protected by God from error.

The Jehovahs Witnesses decieve their people with that lie.

The Mormons decieve their people with that lie.

David Koresh and Jim Jones decieved their people with that lie.

And the Catholic Church decieves their people with that lie.

And look at the result...1700 years of error running rampant, confusion and heresy being passed off as truth, chaos and confusion leading to more chaos and confusion...with nothing...NOTHING...working as a "checks and balances" system to reign it all in.

May Almighty God have mercy.

"Sorry my friend, the Holy Spirit does not lead to chaos and contradictory views on the essence and character of God or on the meaning of the gospel and salvation and how it is received."

And thats why I and others are so certain regarding our convictions regarding groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholicism. If the error in the evangelical world is maybe a 2 or 3 on a scale of 10, Catholicism would register about a 25 on that 10 scale.

Not hard to see where the Holy Spirit is...and where He isnt.

"We are to worship the One True God in Spirit and Truth, not in half-truths, partial truths, or in mutually conflicting conceptions of Him. I'm utterly and truly stunned and astonished that you can think it's okay for people just to be "convinced in their own minds" when the Truth itself (rather, Himself) is at stake."

It doesnt need to be so confusing for you. And it doesnt have to be so confusing for you. It really doesnt.

God bless you,

Mike

 

[Living4Him]

They were never quoted by Christ. They were never quoted by the Apostles. They were never accepted by the Jews of any age.

Oh really?

Bible references (NT) to Deuterocanonical books of the O.T.: These references show legitimacy to these books that Protestants rejected.

1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2Macc 7:1-29. How do you, who do not have 2Maccabees, explain that? Note! The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1King 17:23 and 2King 4:36.

2. Heb 11:38, "...wandering in the deserts, mountains..." This is found in 1Macc 2:28-30 and 2Macc 5:27.

3. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.

4. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.

5. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7

6. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6

7. Heb 1:3, "...brightness of His glory..." Similar to Wis 7:26-27

8. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.

9. 1Cor 6:13, "...food for the belly and belly for food..." Similar to Sir 36:20

10. Rom 1:18-32, GOD is known by the things He has created...Similar to Wis 13:1-9

11. Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Similar to Tob 4:16

12. Lk 14:13, "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.

13. Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass." Similar to Tob 13:21.

14. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.

15. Mt 18:15, "But if thy brother sin against thee..." Similar to Sir 19:13

16. Mt 25:36, "...sick and you visited me..." Similar to Sir 7:39.

17. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.

18. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." Found in Wis 2:13.

19. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.

20. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.

21. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.

22. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.

23. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.

24. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.

25. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Yet it clearly is a big deal whether God is only a monad or exists in Three Persons. This goes to the very essence of who God is, yet advocates of "sola Scriptura" have come to mutually contradictory conclusions--some are Trinitarian, some are unitarian or modalists. I'd say the essence of God is fundamental to the faith."

Why are you bringing up false christian views about the nature of God into this? Why are you changing the subject? We have been speaking of "in house" discussions regarding brothers and sisters in the faith. Lets stick with that.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not changing the subject at all--I'm merely pointing out that some have (and still do) on the basis of sola Scriptura concluded that a modalistic or unitarian concept of God is the Biblically correct one. Such have argued thus on this Baptisboard. They would argue that they are, in fact, "Christians", and are thus part of any "in house" discussions among other Christians. Who are you to say otherwise? Afterall, these individuals have the same Bible you do and many equally bash that dastardly RC Church like you do.

The folks on the predestination side and the folks on the free will side do indeed agree with one another regarding many many aspects of the nature and character of God.

But not on all aspects as we will soon see...

That God is love... That God wants to save people.

But this is at the heart of the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Does God love and want to save everybody, or just an arbitrary elect of his own choosing. One's "god" is omnibenevolent and all-loving the other's is not. One's "christ" died for the sins for all (meaning everyone); the other only for the elect.

And folks from either group will accuratly present the truth of the gospel...justification through faith alone in Christ alone...to a lost person.

Except for that pesky faith alone part which just ain't Biblical (see James 2:24). There are many Protestants who disagree about faith "alone", whether it's actually "biblical" or what it may or may not mean. Are you going to boot them out of your club?

Thats why these brothers and sisters contend with one another regarding truth. Its a very very very healthy thing.

It's only healthy if it brings about unity. The fact that these "contentions" have never arrived at the mutually agreed upon truth shows how unhealthy the whole "just-me-and-the-Bible" mentallity really is.

Without the freedom of brothers and sisters contending...error can run rampant, unchecked, unhindered, multiplying exponentially.

But error is running rampant and multiplying exponentially because each individual Christian or sect acts as their own "mini-pope", teaching contradictory doctrines despite all claiming the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Just take a look at the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons, and Catholics. What hidious messes those groups are.

Without necessarily disagreeing, I'd say look at the hideous schismatic mess of Protestant denominationalism. It's truly sad.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...These issues have bearing on the actual meaning of salvation and how it is "appropriated", and yet there are those "sola Scriptura" advocates who come to opposite conclusions on these substantial issues.

And thats why its such an incredibly healthy thing for brothers and sisters to come together and discuss these things...holding each other accountable...being Gods "checks and balances" system. What a healthy thing it is.</font>[/QUOTE]But it's not healthy because despite all these discussions, denominations remain undivided (and continue to multiply) not being able to agree on these substantial things. Yet they're just all "going by the book"....

And what a catastrophe...a monsterous and devilish catastrophe...when any group can decieve Gods dearly loved people into thinking that THEY...the "Hierarchy" of that group...are Gods truth interpreters, and that everyone must submit to every interpretation of theirs, because they are...supposedly...protected by God from error.

And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth, irrespective of the undivided Church's common, continuous understanding of the Truth through time and space.

And look at the result...1700 years of error running rampant, confusion and heresy being passed off as truth, chaos and confusion leading to more chaos and confusion...with nothing...NOTHING...working as a "checks and balances" system to reign it all in.

Which is really nothing compared to the 500 plus years of actually greater confusion, error and relativistic chaos being passed off as true authentic Christianity. Without the "checks and balances" of the Holy Spirit guiding the church as a whole, such utter, rampant, appalling, astonishing chaos will wax worse and worse and worse....

May Almighty God have mercy.

Indeed...may He grant mercy to the schismatics who, for the sake of individualism, have led us to this mess.

Not hard to see where the Holy Spirit is...and where He isnt.

Yep...and He certainly is not (at least not fully) in the chaos of denominationalism.

Mike, it's truly sad that because of your Romaphobia you can't see the beam in your own Protestant eye.

(BTW--I'm not Roman Catholic, nor do I plan on becoming one if that clears up some confusion you may be having)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:
They were never quoted by Christ. They were never quoted by the Apostles.

Neither were several of the protocanonical OT books. I guess we should throw them out too.
(However, as another poster mentioned, there are in fact allusions in the NT to these works)

They were never accepted by the Jews of any age.

Wrong. They were used by the Jews of the Dispersion and the Essenes in Palestine. They are used by Ethiopian Jews today.

The difference in time between the writing of the Septuagint and the completion of the Apocrypha is more than 250 years.

So? The various OT books were written over the course of several centuries, they just didn't drop out of the sky. What does it prove about the canonicity of subsequently written books if, at a given point in time, all books written up to that time were translated into a different language first? Nothing--what matters is how the books were used in the commmunity of faith. (And actually, the Deuterocanonicals were written within about 150 years of the original translation of the proto-OT into Greek.)

To consider these fairy-tale type books as Scripture is a joke.

Well, I guess the joke's on the early Christians who quoted them as Scripture.

Because someone included them in later editions of the Septuagint does make them authentic.

It doesn't rule out their authenticity either.

They are no more authentic than the Book of Mormon.

The early Christians and the Hellenic Jews of the time would beg to differ (as would the Ethiopian Jews of today).

I'll let church historian JND Kelly sum it up (although I will avoid extensive quoting for copywrite reasons--see the full treatment in his Early Christian Doctrines pg.53-55):

"It should be observed that the OT thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive that the 22 or 24 books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism ([here Kelly shows how this numbering is arrived at]) It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint."(ECD, pg.53)

Kelly then goes on to give a brief history of the LXX, mentioning its beginning in Alexandria in the mid-3rd century BC and how it became the Bible of the "Greek-speaking Jews of the Dispersion". He also mentions that most of the NT quotes of the OT are from the LXX and not the Hebrew. He then mentions how the Jews of Palestine [the Essenes excepted] seemed to have a "rigidly fixed" canon, but then proceeds to write...
"The outlook of the Jewish communities outside of Palestine tended to be much more elastic. While respecting the unique position of the Pentateuch, they treated the later books of the Old Testament with considerable freedom...and they did not hesitate to add entirely new books to the list. In this way I Esdras, Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees came to be included among the histories, and Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon (these last three 'the Additions to the Book of Daniel'.), and the Prayer of Manasseh among the poetical and prophetic books." (ibid, pg.53-54)

Kelly then goes on the list (and footnote) various instances where various early Fathers--Polycarp, Clement (of Rome), Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Clement (of Alexandria) quote these various works as Scripture. It wasn't until the close of the second century through dialogues/debates with Palestinian Jews that Christians began to show some hesistation regarding the status of these works.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

But it's not healthy because despite all these discussions, denominations remain undivided [sic] (and continue to multiply) not being able to agree on these substantial things. Yet they're just all "going by the book"....

Whoops...I meant to say "remain divided".

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
Oh really?

Yes Really!!!!!!!!!!!!

No reliable Bible dictionary or encyclopedia will state that these books were ever cited in the New Testament. Check it out for yourselr.

It is absouletely absurd to think that similar phrases between different books are quotations from one to another. Is that like me saying that "God loved the world," and thus John, the writer of the Gospel, was quoting me??
That is your logic here. Totally absurd!!

Here are some quotes from Wycliffe's Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pulblished by Moody Press. It is a well known and very reliable source of information.

The apocryphal books, commonly dated from the 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D., were too late to qualify (for the canon). Some of the books have historical mistakes and represent questionable ethics and theology.
The earliest list of OT canon (Melito of Sardis; cf. Eusebius H.E. iv. 16.14) does not include the Apocrypha. No book of the Apocrypha is directly quoted in the NT.

David Cloud has also done extensive research on the subject. Though you may be biased against this writer one thing that you cannot slight him for is the thoroughness of his research. He documents what he says.

Why reject the Apocrypha:
1. They are not included in the original Hebrew O.T. preserved by the Jews (Rom.3:1,2)

2. They were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries after Christ.

3. They were not written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and prophets of the OT.

4. They do not claim to be the inspired Word of God (no phrases such as "thus saith the Lord).

5. They contain teachings contrary to the Biblical books (prayers to the dead).

6. In qualitiy and style, the Apocryphal books are not on the level of Bible writings.

7. The Apocryphal writings are not quoted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles, while every part of the OT Scriptures are quoted.

8. Some Apocryphal books, though written as history, are actually fiction.

9. The Apocryphal books were rejected from the canon of Scripture by the early church leaders.

10. The Book of Tobit contains many false things.
a. There is the account of a supposed high and good angel of God who lies and teaches the use of magic (Tobit 5:4,12)
b. The false doctrine of salvation through works is taught in the Book of Tobit (Tobit 12:9)
c. Tobit taught that help is given only to the deserving (Tobit 4:17)

11. The Book of Judith contains the account of how a supposedly godly widow destroyed one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals through deceit and sexual offers.

These are spurious, fraudulent books that have no right to be included in the canon of the Scipture (66 books inspired of God).
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

David Cloud....there's a reliable source for ya'.

(Never mind there's a rebuttle to everyone of his points. I mentioned a few in my post above.)

 

[Living4Him]

Hellenistic Greek was the language of the day during the time of Christ. This was due to the fact that Alexander the Great had conquered the region several hundred years before. The Hebrew language was on its way out, and there was a critical need for a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for dispersed Greek speaking Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, or LXX, was completed by Jewish scholars in about 148 B.C. and it had all of the books, including the seven removed by Martin Luther over 1650 years later. The New Testament has about 350 references to Old Testament verses. By careful examination, scholars have determined that 300 of these are from the Septuagint and the rest are from the Hebrew Old Testament*. They have shown that Jesus Christ Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. Early Christians used the Septuagint to support Christian teachings. The Jews were upset that these new Christians were using their translation for Christian advantage.

About 90-95 A.D., or several decades after the beginning of Christianity, the Jews called a council to deal with the matter. In this council, called the "Council of Jamnia*", Jewish Pharisees, who survived the devastating destruction of Jerusalem and of their temple in 70 A.D., decided to remove books that were helpful to Christians. They removed the seven books, using various reasons as their "authorization" to do so. Keep in mind, that the Greek speaking Jews had been using the Septuagint for well over two centuries by this time. It was the Bible of the Greek speaking "Bereans" of Acts 17:10-15


Of these books, neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles referenced:
Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentatations, and Nahum.
Does this make these books any less canonical simply because they were not referenced by them?

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"I'm not changing the subject at all--I'm merely pointing out that some have (and still do) on the basis of sola Scriptura concluded that a modalistic or unitarian concept of God is the Biblically correct one. Such have argued thus on this Baptisboard."

So what. Why should that alarm you? We were told 2000 years ago that their will always be false teachers, wolves in sheeps clothing, and decievers in the world, sometimes masquarading as christians and "ministers of light".

The good news is that we have...in the body of Christ...everyone doing as God has admonished us to do, and that is all of us..."searching the scriptures daily", because "all scriptures is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness", etc. We expose the error with the light.

On the other hand, in groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Catholicism, and the Mormons the people are forbidden to ever believe anything other than what the Gestapo...I mean The Hierarchy...commands them to believe.

With us...Gods checks and balances system works, and the darkness is exposed by the light.

With the other system...heresy, idolatry, false teaching and wickedness multiplies exponentially for 2000 years, totally unchecked and unhindered because NOBODY CAN HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE because the dear ones have been commanded to never disbelieve anything The Hierarchy commands them to believe.

"But this is at the heart of the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Does God love and want to save everybody, or just an arbitrary elect of his own choosing. One's "god" is omnibenevolent and all-loving the other's is not. One's "christ" died for the sins for all (meaning everyone); the other only for the elect.

Thats right. And by contending as they do "iron sharpens iron" and both become stronger. And they both hold the other accountable, and prevent the other side from going too far into REAL problematic teachings. As it is, both sides are biblically sound, both are in agreement regarding multitudes of biblcal teachings, and both proclaim the same...and the TRUE...gospel to a lost person. As opposed to groups like Catholicism who have become a virtual smogasborg of overflowing heresy, idolatry, and devilish false teaching...even to the point of no longer proclaiming the TRUE gospel!

And God says to both sides of your example to "contend eanestly" for the truth, and "study, as a workman who needeth not to be ashamed" to "Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind", and not to "judge your brother" regarding differences such as these..

I say to that..."Yes Lord!" You say..."No Lord!"

"Except for that pesky faith alone part which just ain't Biblical (see James 2:24)"

BINGO

I believe its entirely possible that the cause of much of your confusion may have just been identified.

"It's only healthy if it brings about unity."

I dont personally know any calvinists or arminians who dont love each other and consider the others to be nothing less that brothers and sisters who are working together in the harvest field.

"The fact that these "contentions" have never arrived at the mutually agreed upon truth shows how unhealthy the whole "just-me-and-the-Bible" mentallity really is."

Where do you get this "just me and my bible" nonsense? Millions on both sides of your example have Gods scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is also actively involved on both sides of the issue being discussed.

"But error is running rampant and multiplying exponentially because each individual Christian or sect acts as their own "mini-pope", teaching contradictory doctrines despite all claiming the Holy Spirit's guidance."

I've heard that hysterical nonsense spewed forth on EWTN so many times it would make your head spin.

(although maybe not...you would be saying... "Amen"!)

"And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth, irrespective of the undivided Church's common, continuous understanding of the Truth through time and space."

I find it stunning that you have such a low view of the Holy Spirit. What do you think He...the Holy Spirit...is? A bumbling incompetant? And when you say...

"irrespective of the undivided Church's common, continuous understanding of the Truth through time and space."

You sound like you just stepped out of "RCC indoctrination class 101"

"Continuous understanding of truth???"

The more accurate statement would be "continuous replacement of truth with heretical idolatries and falsehoods."

With all of it running unhindered and unchecked...due to the cunning and very succesful stripping of the masses ability to recognise error, due to the succesful indoctrinating of them to never doubt anything that The Hierarchy commands them to believe.

God help them.

"Mike, it's truly sad that because of your Romaphobia you can't see the beam in your own Protestant eye."

I have no Romaphobia, I am not the least bit scared of her, or her minions. I simply know that of which I speak, and I love Catholic people enough to tell them the truth.

Thats the truth. You are free to spin it however you want.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas...

You said, incredibly...

"And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth,"

"...so presumptous to assume the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth"

John 16:13...

"However, when He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

John 10:27...

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."

John 10:3-6...

"To Him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear His voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out...and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow the voice of a stranger, but will free from him, for they do not know the voice of a stranger"

Presumption?

No...its a normal thing if one is a believer.

The scriptures tell us that God knows an individual sparrow when it falls, that He feeds individually every bird, and He individually clothes every single flower.

I can assure you...God can feed His people truth individually. Thank God that He can.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Melanie]

And despite all this kufuffle the Roman Catholic Church survives intact from when it was instigated by Jesus Christ and it takes solace that the Gates of Hell will never prevail....

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saculorum. Amen.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Doubting Thomas...

You said, incredibly...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth,"

"...so presumptous to assume the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth"

John 16:13...

"However, when He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Umm..Mike, "you" is plural in that passage. God promises the Holy Spirit to quide the Church collectively into the One Truth; He doesn't promise to guide individuals into multiple mutually contradictory "truths". It baffles me that this concept escapes you and that you keep referring to some fictious "checks and balances" whereby the Christian world, in fact, remains fractured into denominationalism. Then you get all "kum-bah-ya" on me and say (WTTE): "But they all are one...can't you see how calvinists and arminians despite their differences really love each other." Never mind that they remain divided, as do countless other denominations, all just "going by the book". So much for "one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism...".

"Yep, we all just love each other, although, despite mutual committments to "solo Scriptura", we can't agree exactly on what the one faith is and therefore can't worship together as one body. (We'll just remain separate and tolerate each other as we teach our contradictory versions of the "truth", thank you very much). But hey--at least we're not Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Catholics!!!!"

 

[Priscilla Ann]

The discussion on this thread reminds me of a couple of incidents that I recall from my 38 years as a Catholic.

I began studying the bible when I was in my early 30's; and as a result, began to see the inconsistencies between Catholic teaching and the bible. (Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, etc.) When I pointed these out to my priest during a discussion, he told me the problem was that I needed to read the bible with a Catholic commentary. In other words, he implied that I could not correctly understand the bible unless I read it with a Catholic commentary.

Around that same time, I had a discussion with my grandmother. Grandma was a devout, lifelong Catholic who attended mass daily. I mentioned to her that I had been reading the bible. Grandma told me that she had never read the bible. I asked, "Grandma, how do you know what the bible says." Grandma replied, "Oh, the priest tells us."

During my 38 years a s a Catholic, I not encouraged to read the bible. If the bible was read at all, it was to be only with a Catholic commentary.

I left Catholicism about 10 years ago. Have things changed since I left?

PA

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
[QB] Doubting Thomas,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"I'm not changing the subject at all--I'm merely pointing out that some have (and still do) on the basis of sola Scriptura concluded that a modalistic or unitarian concept of God is the Biblically correct one. Such have argued thus on this Baptisboard."

So what. Why should that alarm you? We were told 2000 years ago that their will always be false teachers, wolves in sheeps clothing, and decievers in the world, sometimes masquarading as christians and "ministers of light".</font>[/QUOTE]But who is teaching the truth? Trinitarians say they are. Unitarians say they are. Modalists say they are. Which ones are the real Christians and which are the false ones? Who are the sheep (actually hearing the voice of the Shephard) and who are the wolves? They all claim to be faithful to the bible.

The good news is that we have...in the body of Christ...everyone doing as God has admonished us to do, and that is all of us..."searching the scriptures daily", because "all scriptures is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness", etc. We expose the error with the light.

Except that each group, based on their "searching the Scriptures daily", have concluded that the others are on error on points X, Y, and Z. So which group is exposing error (and at which point) and which group is just blowing hot air? It's not as if the others are saying: "Gee, you are right. My interpretation is wrong and I accept your admonition" and then proceeding to lay aside their differences they are merging their separate groups together. Nope, denominationalism is alive and well. I'm truly astonished and utterly stunned that you seem to belief that this denominationalism is part of God's "checks and balance" system as if He was going to scatter bits and pieces of His Truth among the different sects. (When are these alleged "checks and balances" actually going to start working , Mike?) So much for all for us being one as Christ and the Father are one so the world may believe in Christ (John 17:21--and, no, Mike, the world can't see an invisible "unity").

(Now here's where you go into "kum-bah-ya" mode and repeat your talking points on "in-house" "checks and balances" before going on another diatribe about Mormons, JWs, and Roman Catholics, despite the fact that I'm none of the above.)

(Well, I've wasted enough of my time on this..time to enjoy the weekend.)